Modeling and Control of Tubular Solid-Oxide Fuel Cell Systems: II. Nonlinear Model Reduction and Model Predictive Control
Modeling and Control of Tubular Solid-Oxide Fuel Cell Systems: II. Nonlinear Model Reduction and Model Predictive Control
Modeling and Control of Tubular Solid-Oxide Fuel Cell Systems: II. Nonlinear Model Reduction and Model Predictive Control
Modeling and control of tubular solid-oxide fuel cell systems: II. Nonlinear model
reduction and model predictive control
Borhan M. Sanandaji, Tyrone L. Vincent ∗ , Andrew M. Colclasure, Robert J. Kee
Engineering Division, Colorado School of Mines, 1600 Illinois St., Golden, CO 80401, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: This paper describes a systematic method for developing model-based controllers for solid-oxide fuel
Received 13 May 2010 cell (SOFC) systems. To enhance the system efficiency and to avoid possible damages, the system must
Received in revised form 18 June 2010 be controlled within specific operating conditions, while satisfying a load requirement. Model predictive
Accepted 21 June 2010
control (MPC) is a natural choice for control implementation. However, to implement MPC, a low-order
Available online 3 July 2010
model is needed that captures the dominant dynamic behavior over the operating range. A linear param-
eter varying (LPV) model structure is developed and applied to obtain a control-oriented dynamic model
Keywords:
of the SOFC stack. This approach effectively reduces a detailed physical model to a form that is compat-
Tubular SOFC
Physical modeling
ible with MPC. The LPV structure includes nonlinear scheduling functions that blend the dynamics of
Model predictive control locally linear models to represent nonlinear dynamic behavior over large operating ranges. Alternative
Nonlinear system identification scheduling variables are evaluated, with cell current being shown to be an appropriate choice. Using the
Linear parameter varying models reduced-order model, an MPC controller is designed that can respond to the load requirement over a
wide range of operation changes while maintaining input–output variables within specified constraints.
To validate the approach, the LPV-based MPC controller is applied to the high-order physical model.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Fuel cells are devices that enable the direct conversion of chem- To operate at multiple power levels, fuel cells require a control
ical energy into electrical energy, with a theoretical conversion system to balance the fuel and air supply, as well as the electri-
efficiency that can be much higher than for heat engines [2]. As cal load. This is important both to achieve high efficiency, as well
illustrated in Fig. 1, the systems are an integrated combination as to avoid operating conditions that can damage the fuel cell, such
of contributing components including the fuel cell stack, together as excessive temperature or temperature gradients, catalyst coking,
with balance of plant (BOP) components that include air blowers, and anode reoxidation. Especially for small portable power applica-
fuel pump, fuel reformer (e.g., catalytic partial oxidation (CPOX)), tions, the SOFC must deliver power profiles that meet the transient
load demands. Consider, for example, an auxiliary power unit (APU)
that is designed to satisfy the hotel loads for the sleeper cab on a
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 303 273 3641; fax: +1 303 273 3602. long-haul truck. Depending upon the activities and appliances in
E-mail address: tvincent@mines.edu (T.L. Vincent). the cab, the power demanded from the APU can vary considerably
0378-7753/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.06.075
B.M. Sanandaji et al. / Journal of Power Sources 196 (2011) 208–217 209
Fig. 2. System block diagram showing input–output allocation of the control struc-
ture. Note that the tubes in the SOFC stack are in a parallel configuration in regard
to the fuel and air, but in a series configuration electrically, so that the stack voltage
is the sum of the tube voltages.
Table 1
Selected OPs data.
Using the results of the previous section, the small-signal mod- In other words, the objective is to find
els, Gi (z) (i = 1, 2, . . ., m), are available for m = 6 different OPs. In
N
other words, each Gi (z) captures the small-signal behavior for one argmin ıyk − ıŷk 2 , (5)
value of the scheduling parameter, . A set of scheduling functions fi (¯ j )
k=1
fi () (i = 1, 2, . . ., m) is needed to match the overall system response
to large-signal variations. As shown in Fig. 4, the functions fi () are so that the scheduling functions blend the small-signal models to
weighting factors that combine the outputs of the linearized mod- best match the observed output. However, without placing restric-
els. This means that fi () describes how closely model i describes tions on fi (¯ j ), the minimization problem is under-determined,
the model dynamics at scheduling point , and thus can be thought meaning that many different functions can make the objective
of as a correlation metric between the current operating condition function equal zero. Thus, constraints are required. The imposed
and operating point i. constraints are natural choices. One set of constraints come
from the definition of the scheduling functions: they must range
between 0 and 1 (0 ≤ fi (¯ j ) ≤ 1), and the sum of the scheduling
m
functions over i for any ¯ j must always be unity ( i=1 fi (¯ j ) = 1).
Moreover, the value of each scheduling function at its correspond-
ing OP should be equal to unity, i.e. fi (¯ j = i ) = 1, where i is the
value of ¯ j that corresponds to the OP for system Gi (z). However, the
optimization problem is still under-determined. Including a regu-
larization term in the objective function solves the problem. This
term makes the identified functions sufficiently smooth. As intro-
duced by Hsu et al. [19], a dispersion function is used as a measure
of smoothness for the non-parametric identification of nonlinear
systems. The dispersion function is a smoothness measure for func-
Fig. 6. Combined linear model at multiple OPs. tions that are described point-wise, and is closely related to total
B.M. Sanandaji et al. / Journal of Power Sources 196 (2011) 208–217 213
variation. It can also be extended to multi-dimensional functions, 3.2.1. LPV-based nonlinear identification
¯ Given a point-wise
but for simplicity it is restricted here to scalar . Consider an example to illustrate the use of an LPV scheme for
description of a function in terms of points (¯ j , f (¯ j )), the dispersion the nonlinear system identification of the SOFC stack. Cell current is
of f is defined as chosen as the scheduling parameter. Using other output variables,
or combinations of output variables, as the scheduling variable is
−1
discussed in the following section. The stack OPs are specified by
(f (¯ j )) = Lj2 , (6) two input variables, cell voltage and fuel flow rate. To transition
j=1 between different OPs, a transient simulation is designed in which
the output variables vary greatly within the acceptable operating
where Lj are the lengths of a linear interplant of (¯ j , f (¯ j ) (Fig. 7). The space (Fig. 5). Fig. 8a and b shows the temporal variation of the
dispersion is a quadratic function of the values of fi (¯ j ). Adding the input signals fuel flow rate and cell voltage. Fig. 8c and d shows
constraints and adding the smoothness measure to the objective the corresponding output responses for cell current and H2 in the
function, the optimization problem can be written as anode exhaust. To assist understanding how large-signal variations
move within the region defined by selected OPs, Fig. 9 illustrates
N
m
the changes in input and output spaces.
min ıyk − ıŷk 2 + ˇ (fi (¯ j )) By solving the optimization problem as described by Eq. (7),
fi (¯ j )
k=1 i=1 six scheduling functions are identified. Fig. 10 illustrates the six
subject to 0 ≤ fi (¯ j ) ≤ 1, scheduling functions where cell current is used as the scheduling
(7)
m
parameter. A value of ˇ = 1 is used. As required by the constraints,
¯j
fi ( ) = 1,
i=1
fi (i ) = 1,
where
and (˚, , C, D) are state-space matrices associated with the Fig. 9. Large-signal simulation. (a) Variation in input space over selected OPs. (b)
dynamics of the combined model G(z). Variation in output space over selected OPs.
214 B.M. Sanandaji et al. / Journal of Power Sources 196 (2011) 208–217
Fig. 11. Comparison between outputs from physically based high-order model and
the LPV-based low-order model over a wide range of operation. The results are
essentially indistinguishable.
where ỹk is the output of the LPV model, yk is the output of the actual
system (here the physical model) and ıŷk is calculated as in Eq.
(4). The objective is to reduce error accumulation in the integrator.
Since the model is intended to be used for real-time control, the
value of the system output yk−1 is available from actual sensors,
or sensor inferences. In Eq. (11), the prediction parameter L is a
free parameter, which can be chosen based on the length of the
experiment and the output variable. A value of 0.05 is chosen in
the results presented here.
The fidelity of the reduced-order models can be evaluated by
direct comparison with the detailed physical model. Fig. 11 shows
the results of both the low-order identified model and the full phys-
ical model, both being driven by the input transients shown in
Fig. 8a and b. To within the thickness of the lines, the two mod-
els produce essentially indistinguishable results. The LPV method,
based on smooth combinations of small-signal linear models, deliv-
ers an excellent representation of the nonlinear physical behavior
over wide ranges of operating conditions.
Although cell current was used as the LPV scheduling parameter Fig. 12. Identified scheduling functions with H2 mole fraction in anode exhaust as
in the previous example, it is not the only choice. Fig. 12 illustrates the scheduling variable.
B.M. Sanandaji et al. / Journal of Power Sources 196 (2011) 208–217 215
Cell current alone 0.16504 The role of control is to choose future actuation that guides the
Exhaust H2 alone 0.17632 system according to a desired trajectory. Assume that a desired
Cell current and exhaust H2 0.16121
output trajectory can be specified as ykd for k = k0 , . . ., k0 + p. The
216 B.M. Sanandaji et al. / Journal of Power Sources 196 (2011) 208–217
Fig. 14. (a) Comparison between the desired cell current and the cell current deliv-
4.3. Controller performance
ered by the MPC controller. At this scale, the controlled result is essentially within
a line thickness of the desired current. (b) An expanded section of the trajectory,
To evaluate performance, an MPC controller is used to control revealing some small differences between desired and achieved cell current.
the physical SOFC model through a specified transient trajectory of
desired output current, while also satisfying constraints. The con-
troller uses the low-order LPV-based model for state estimation variables. In actual operation, the manipulated voltage is the sum
and actuation sequences. Fig. 14a shows both the desired current of the voltages across each cell, but here the “average” cell voltage,
trajectory and the achieved cell current using the MPC controller. or total voltage divided by number of cells, is reported. The con-
At this scale, the two curves are nearly indistinguishable. Fig. 14b troller maintains the commanded cell voltage and fuel flow rate
is an expanded graph over a short time interval that reveals some within the defined bounds (shown as the dashed lines). Cathode-
small differences between the desired and achieved cell-current air inlet flow rate is also controlled. However, for the short time
histories. The desired current spans a significantly wide range, interval shown in Fig. 15, it is essentially unchanged. Fig. 15c and
over which the physical behavior is strongly nonlinear. Although d show the output variables. The anode-exhaust hydrogen mole
near step-changes in the desired current trajectory, some small fraction remains in the desired pre-specified bounds. Because of
overshoots are present, the MPC controller is delivering excellent long thermal time constants, the cathode-exhaust air temperature
performance. varies relatively little over the short 40 s time interval.
In addition to achieving the desired cell-current trajectory These results show that the MPC controller provides excellent
(Fig. 14), the controller is able to respect constraints on the input performance over a very demanding cell-current trajectory. More-
and output variables. Fig. 15a and b shows the controlled input over, the controller meets the load demand, while also respecting
Fig. 15. MPC controlled input commands and model-predicted responses. Pre-specified bounds are shown with dashed lines. (a) Controller-commanded cell voltage. (b)
Controller-commanded fuel flow rate. (c) Hydrogen mole fraction in the anode exhaust. (d) Cathode-air exhaust temperature.
B.M. Sanandaji et al. / Journal of Power Sources 196 (2011) 208–217 217
constraints on input and output variables. Qualitatively, the con- put variables, results show that scheduling based on the cell current
troller is making some anticipated decisions. For example, when alone provides excellent results.
the load decreases at around 5 s, the cell voltage increases and the
fuel flow rate decreases. As the load demand increases, the cell volt- References
age decreases and fuel flow rate increases. However, it would be
difficult, if not impossible, to achieve the complex set of controller [1] A.M. Colclasure, B.M. Sanandaji, T.L. Vincent, R.J. Kee, Modeling and control
of tubular solid-oxide fuel cell systems. I. Physical models and linear model
commands with less capable control strategies such as a PID regula- reduction. J. Power Sources 196 (2010) 196–207.
tor. Moreover, controllers such as PID are not capable of respecting [2] R.J. Kee, H. Zhu, D.G. Goodwin, Proc. Combust. Inst. 30 (2) (2005) 2379–2404.
input and output constraints. [3] R.J. Kee, H. Zhu, A.M. Sukeshini, G.S. Jackson, Combust. Sci. Technol. 180 (6)
(2008) 1207–1244.
[4] T.L. Vincent, B.M. Sanandaji, A.M. Colclasure, H. Zhu, R.J. Kee, ECS Trans. 25
5. Summary and conclusions (2009) 1175–1184.
[5] D.J. Hall, R.G. Colclaser, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 14 (3) (1999) 749–753.
[6] J. Padulles, G.W. Ault, J.R. McDonald, J. Power Sources 86 (1–2) (2000) 495–500.
A systematic approach is used to incorporate physical knowl- [7] J.T. Pukrushpan, A.G. Stefanopoulou, H. Peng, Control of Fuel Cell Power Sys-
edge into the control of an SOFC stack. The process begins with tems: Principles, Modeling, Analysis and Feedback Design, Springer Verlag,
a transient, high-fidelity, physical model. Such models, are too 2004.
[8] J. Yang, X. Li, H.G. Mou, L. Jian, J. Power Sources 188 (2) (2009) 475–482.
computationally expensive to be considered for direct incorpora-
[9] J. Arriagada, P. Olausson, A. Selimovic, J. Power Sources 112 (1) (2002) 54–60.
tion into real-time control. Reduced-order locally linear models [10] H.B. Huo, X.J. Zhu, W.Q. Hu, H.Y. Tu, J. Li, J. Yang, J. Power Sources 185 (1) (2008)
are required. However, the reduced models must be predictive 338–344.
over wide operating ranges, and thus capture nonlinear behav- [11] X. Wang, B. Huang, T. Chen, J. Process Control 17 (2) (2007) 103–114.
[12] J. Hasikos, H. Sarimveis, P.L. Zervas, N.C. Markatos, J. Power Sources 193 (1)
iors. Model reduction here is accomplished using an LPV structure. (2009) 258–268.
Results show that by smoothly scheduling between operating con- [13] Q. Chen, L. Gao, R.A. Dougal, S. Quan, J. Power Sources 191 (2) (2009) 473–482.
ditions, nonlinear behaviors can be adequately represented by [14] Q. Li, W. Chen, Y. Wang, J. Jia, M. Han, J. Power Sources 194 (1) (2009) 338–348.
[15] M.A. Danzer, J. Wilhelm, H. Aschemann, E.P. Hofer, J. Power Sources 176 (2)
combinations of low-order locally linear models. At certain steady- (2008) 515–522.
state OPs that span the expected operating space, locally linear [16] J. Yang, X. Li, H.G. Mou, L. Jian, J. Power Sources 193 (2) (2009) 699–705.
models are identified by systematic perturbations of the high-order [17] F. Jurado, J. Power Sources 158 (1) (2006) 245–253.
[18] B.M. Sanandaji, T.L. Vincent, A.M. Colclasure, R.J. Kee, Proceedings of the ASME
physical model. An MPC controller is designed and implemented Dynamic Systems and Control Conference, 2009.
based on the reduced-order models. In addition to meeting load- [19] K. Hsu, K. Poolla, T.L. Vincent, IEEE Trans. Automatic Control 53 (11) (2008)
demand transients, the MPC controller can also be designed to 2497–2513.
[20] M. Grant, S. Boyd, CVX: Matlab software for disciplined convex programming,
satisfy constraints on actuation commands (e.g., cell voltage and version 1.21. http://cvxr.com/cvx, April 2010.
fuel flow rate) and on output responses (e.g., fuel utilization). To [21] J. Löfberg, Proceedings of the CACSD Conference, Taipei, Taiwan, 2004.
evaluate performance, the LPV-based MPC controller is used to con- [22] L. Ljung, System Identification: Theory for the User, 2nd edition, Prentice-Hall,
1999.
trol the physically based high-order model. Although scheduling
between low-order linear models can depend upon multiple out-